The Court, the Legislature and the Co-Construction of a Status of Social Integration

25 years after its introduction, Union citizenship has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for dynamism. As a legal institution its history has been marked by an almost constant development prompted first by the Court and later developed by the legislature. Originally considered a mere cipher,1 Union citizenship constituted the vehicle by which rights previously the preserve of the economically active were extended to the noneconomically active. In this way a novel transnational membership status has been progressively developed. As noted by the Kostakopoulou, its development is best understood as a constructive process, with Union citizenship evolving through the contributions of different actors at different stages of its development.2 The purpose of this contribution is to assess the respective roles of the Court and the legislature in the development of Union citizenship. It will be argued that both institutions have contributed in a largely complementary fashion to the development of this institution and to its current shape. Particular emphasis is placed on the development of Union citizenship as a transnational status of social integration. An important consideration here is the debate that was triggered by the Dano line of caselaw regarding the appropriate interpretative role of the Court of Justice in this field, which is characterised by an unsettled hierarchy of norms